Hello. > This is where I ran into problems. Is get_string constable? It seems > possible that someone somewhere would want to cache a stringification > that was computationally intensive, for later reuse. So now (as > bernhard kindly pointed out to me), this is starting to sound like a > design issue.
I faced the same problem when trying to get rid of some warnings in order to help cage cleaning. Adding or removing a const in the parameters of many functions becomes a design change, not a simple code cleaning. If you add a cast to remove a warning, when the called function get fixed a new warning appears about the now unnecessary cast. The same applies to some parameters attributed as non null, and explicitly called with NULL argument in several locations. How can a cleaner figure what is the desired correction? Blindly changing atributes attributes just to pass test looks to me like a problem, not a solution. -- Salu2
